The nineteenth century was a period of dramatic change in Europe for the idea of history. While from antiquity through to the eighteenth century, historiography had broadly been considered an artistic and rhetorical activity, this view gradually lost ground in the nineteenth century to an understanding of history as a science. This case study aims to explore how these shifts in attitudes towards the proper aims and methods of history writing might have shaped the interpretation and translation into English of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, a work first written in classical Greek in the fifth century BCE. The analysis is carried out by means of a corpus-based methodology which, I argue, can better enable researchers to engage with each (re)translator’s overall presentation of the source through the production and interrogation of concordances listing every instance of a given search item as it occurs within digitised versions of the target texts. This is demonstrated through an investigation of the use of the term ‘fact(s)’ which reveals a striking divergence in interpretation between the six translations, with Crawley’s (1874) History in particular appearing to lend a significantly more objective and empirical tone to Thucydides in English.

中文翻译：

---

重新将修昔底德转变为科学历史学家

19世纪是欧洲历史观念发生巨大变化的时期。尽管从古代到18世纪，史学一直被广泛认为是一种艺术和修辞活动，但这种观点在19世纪逐渐失去了对历史作为一门科学的理解的基础。本案例研究旨在探讨态度朝着正确的历史写作目的和方法的这种转变可能如何影响修昔底德的《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》的解释和将其翻译成英语，这是公元前五世纪首次用古典希腊语写成的作品。 。该分析是通过基于语料库的方法进行的，我认为，通过产生和询问列出目标文本的数字化版本中给定搜索项的每个实例的一致性，可以更好地使研究人员与每个（重新）翻译者对源的整体呈现进行互动。这通过对“事实”一词的使用调查得以证明，该事实揭示了六种翻译之间在解释上的惊人差异，尤其是克劳利（Crawley）（1874）的《历史》似乎为修昔底得提供了更为客观和实证的基调。用英语讲。